Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Background

Apple Inc. moved for pretrial sanctions against Epic Games, Inc. under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37. Apple asked the court to exclude three third-party witnesses who were expected to testify for Epic at the bench trial: Vivek Sharma of Facebook Inc., Lori Wright of Microsoft Corporation, and Benjamin Simon of Yoga Buddhi Co.

Apple argued that Epic's required witness disclosures were deficient because Epic listed the witnesses' employers rather than the individuals by name. Apple also asserted that Epic had coordinated with the witnesses to obstruct Apple's efforts to obtain additional documents concerning them.

Parties' Positions

Apple contended that a related agreement between the parties applied only to witnesses who had not already been deposed, not to witnesses who had not previously been disclosed. Apple further argued that Epic's alleged failure to comply with Rule 26 was not harmless and justified excluding the witnesses' testimony.

Epic denied coordinating with the witnesses to prevent Apple from obtaining documents. Epic argued that it promptly disclosed the individuals after learning and confirming that they would testify, that its disclosures complied with Rule 26, and that the parties' agreement permitted the general disclosure of entities and organizations. Epic also argued that Apple could address any issue by deposing the witnesses, which was already scheduled, and that any disclosure violation would have been harmless.

Court's Reasoning

The court concluded that Epic had not violated Rule 26. It found that Epic promptly disclosed the identities of Sharma, Wright, and Simon when it learned that they had been confirmed to appear at trial. The court stated that it could not determine how there could be a Rule 26 violation under those circumstances.

The court also explained that, when a Rule 26 violation occurs, Rule 37 sanctions may be addressed by giving the opposing party an opportunity to depose the witnesses. Apple was already scheduled to depose these witnesses. The court further noted that Epic was substantially justified in relying on the parties' agreement, even though the parties' understanding of that agreement was unclear.

The court warned that if the witnesses failed to produce sufficient relevant documents, the court could consider that failure when evaluating their credibility and, if necessary, could strike their testimony. The court made no express determination about whether Apple's additional document requests were appropriate. It made a specific observation that it was unclear what additional documents Simon or Yoga Buddhi needed to produce because Yoga Buddhi had already produced documents that, according to Epic, involved Simon or an operation he controlled.

Disposition

The court denied Apple's motion for pretrial sanctions. The order terminated Docket Number 419.